
If this had been a normal British Open, Ernie Els would’ve been hanging out on the putting green hoping his work was done. Any other time, he wouldn’t have welcomed a playoff to secure the title.
The Big Easy was willing to make an exception this time.
There was nothing normal about a wind-swept Sunday at Royal Lytham & St. Annes.
“Crazy, crazy, crazy,” Els kept saying.
Crazy, indeed. And, for the guy who let it slip away, a gut-wrenching blow.
Adam Scott had the claret jug in his grasp with four holes to play. A player of enormous potential was poised to fulfill his promise at age 32, to collect the first major championship of his career after building a comfortable lead over three days of brilliant golf.
Then, a bogey. And another. And another. And finally, at the 18th hole, with a 7-foot putt to at least force a playoff, he missed again. Scott’s knees buckled. Golf’s oldest championship had been snatched away, handed to Els with one of the great collapses in golfing history.
When it was done, Scott had to make a painful walk back to the 18th green to collect the prize that goes to the runner-up. On the table was the silver chalice that should’ve been his.
He gave it to Els on a silver platter.
Scott can only hope he doesn’t turn out to be another Van de Velde or Sneed, players who had their one shot at glory and never came close again.
Scott, who went into the final round with a four-stroke lead after three straight rounds in the 60s, got off to a wobbly start with two bogeys on the first three holes. But the breeze off the Irish Sea — nonexistent through the first three rounds — blew everyone else away. Everyone but Els, that is, a guy who hadn’t won in more than two years, a guy whose best golf seemed behind him.
Tiger Woods made a triple-bogey at the sixth, forced to take one swing while sitting on the grass next to a bunker. In one wayward hole, he lost any chance of rallying to win a 15th major title and end a more than four-year drought since his last big win.
Graeme McDowell duck-hooked his ball into the trees along the 11th fairway, the sort of shot that a weekend duffer might hit, not the 2010 U.S. Open champion. Thirty-six-hole leader Brandt Snedeker also lost a ball, gobbled up by the thick rough.
Els was the only one who mounted a charge, closing with a 2-under 68. But, let’s face it, that shouldn’t have been enough.
Scott appeared to wrap it up with a birdie at the 14th hole, restoring the four-stroke lead he had at the start of the day. Even when a shot into one of the 206 bunkers at Royal Lytham led to a bogey at the 15th, he still seemed in good shape. But when he missed a 3-footer at the 16th, there were some ominous groans from the gallery. And when Els, a couple of holes ahead, rolled in a 15- footer for birdie at the tough finishing hole, Scott couldn’t miss the cheers from across the course.
Then he knocked his tee shot at 18 into another bunker, the ball winding up next to one of the towering sod walls, leaving him with no other choice except to punch it out into the fairway. He showed plenty of guts by getting his iron shot so close, but the long putter that had worked so well all week let him down again.
The ball never had a chance, rolling past the left edge of the cup.
“It’s hard to watch a guy do that,” said McDowell, who also played in the final group.
Scott finished with a 5-over 75, leaving him one stroke behind Els’ winning total of 7-under 273.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less